An interesting email:

The distinction that Fred makes might be to define soft money as

money that goes to the political parties, and not money that goes to

independent groups. His answer then would not be logically

inconsistent. He would restrict hard money that goes directly to a

candidate, and limit soft money that goes to political parties, but

not restrict money to independent groups.

Fred may think that restricting the money going directly to

candidates, or through their parties to them would eliminate the

appearance of bribery, but that money that went more indirectly to

independent groups on behalf of a candidate was sufficiently removed

to not look bribery. That is not necessarily a logically inconsistent

position.

I absolutely agree with you as to why that would not work – and why

the whole monstrosity should come crumbling down.

I do think Fred made a mistake but at least he is no longer trying to

defend the indefensible.

It’s not a bad point. Still, your argument itself demonstrates why Fred should just admit that McCain-Feingold was a mistake. It’s a worthless reform if it only limits parties and candidates. Parties and candidates can always find outside groups to act as proxies.